Woman Knew Man Was A Divorcee, Didn’t Verify Pending Appeal, Then Claimed Maintenance As His Wife: Karnataka High Court Rejects Plea

Can a woman claim maintenance after marrying a divorcee without checking whether his divorce decree was under appeal or stayed? The Karnataka High Court said that where the man did not suppress the fact, the claim cannot succeed.

KARNATAKA: The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, has dismissed a woman's revision petition seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, holding that she failed to establish that the man had suppressed the pending appeal or stay against his earlier divorce decree.

Justice Geetha K.B. upheld the Family Court's decision rejecting the maintenance claim.

The woman claimed that the man's earlier marriage had been dissolved by a divorce decree dated 31 March 2015. According to her, she examined the divorce documents and later married him on 1 July 2018.

She alleged that after marriage she stayed with him for eight days and was subjected to cruelty. She later sought maintenance, claiming that she was unable to maintain herself.

The man opposed the claim. He pointed out that although the Family Court had dissolved his first marriage, the decree had been challenged in MFA No.101347/2015, where a stay had been granted. Therefore, his first marriage continued to legally subsist.

The Family Court rejected the woman's maintenance petition. She then approached the High Court.

The High Court noted that during cross-examination, the woman admitted that before the alleged marriage she had examined the man's divorce documents and married him after learning that he was a divorcee. She also admitted that because of the stay order, his first marriage continued to subsist.

The Court stressed that a person who knows that the prospective spouse is a divorcee is expected to make reasonable inquiries about the legal finality of that divorce.

“When once it is brought to the knowledge of petitioner that respondent is a divorcee, the diligent person will make efforts to verify the genuineness of said factum; whether any appeal against the said order is filed, pending or not.”

More importantly, the Court found that the woman had not specifically pleaded in her petition, affidavit evidence or cross-examination that the man had concealed the pending appeal or stay order before marrying her.

The Court observed:

“Under these circumstances, when the marriage of respondent with first wife is still subsisting, respondent is not supposed to marry the petitioner.”

It further clarified when a woman in such circumstances could claim maintenance:

“Furthermore, only if this factum of second marriage is suppressed and respondent married the petitioner; then she is entitled to maintenance. But that is not so in the present case.”

The Court also considered the woman's educational and professional background. She was a PhD holder in Kannada Philosophy and had earlier worked as a lecturer.

The Court noted:

“The petitioner is Ph.D. holder in Kannada Philosophy. Thus, she is not an illiterate person to say that she does not know anything about these aspects. She worked as a lecturer at Hukkeri College for one year in 2015. Thus, she is worldly wise.”

The High Court also found no pleading that the man had forced her to resign from her job. On these facts, it held that she was not entitled to maintenance from him.

The woman relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1 SCC 188 and the Allahabad High Court judgment in Smt. Monika @ Satyawati v. State of U.P.

However, the Karnataka High Court distinguished both decisions. In those cases, the husbands had fraudulently concealed their existing first marriages from the women.

The Karnataka High Court explained why those rulings did not help the petitioner:

“In both the aforesaid cases, the factum of first marriage was concealed fraudulently at the time of second marriage by the husband. However, that is not the situation in the present case.”

The Court ultimately found no specific allegation or evidence establishing suppression by the man and refused to interfere with the Family Court's order.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the revision petition.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Maintenance cannot become an automatic liability on a man merely because a claim is filed.
• If a woman knew the man was a divorcee, the Court said she was expected to verify whether the divorce had attained finality.
• The petitioner failed to prove that the man had hidden the pending appeal or stay order from her.
• Courts distinguished genuine deception from cases where concealment itself is not proved.
• Men should not be forced to carry financial liability on the basis of unproven suppression or incomplete allegations.